kenseto wrote:
Steven Weinberg said that a field is stress in space. Doesn't that
sound like that space is a material medium that can have stress? If so
how is a field different than the ether?

IMO, there is a difference in the two, but only in the conclusions we
draw from our observations. Fields are effects and so is a medium -
both are not visible to us.

My model has fields as Dark Matter (DM), which is the medium for em
waves in our universe. Space is the medium for DM and real matter
(RM). RM, of course, is visible matter.

Matter exists in states that make it visible and invisible to us, as a
function of their existence as negative mass (DM) or positive mass.
Note that this does not refer to charge, only to Dirac's theory about
positrons, and also Gamow's follow-up concept of a media sea of
invisible particles.

My model suggests this media sea is DM that came out of the Big Band
(BB), and which is still spreading out through absolute space, and
which defines the area of our universe. It rejects the notion that
space came out of the BB, because there is no plausible explanation for
what it could have come out into, other than a so-called Great Void.
Such a notion has no basis for it in all of our observations nor in all
that we have learned so far about our universe.

Absolute space, which I define as space devoid of anything in it, is
where my model suggests the "singularity" existed and into which it
exploded. That suggestion resolves a number of problems posed by the
BBT and the Inflationary Period (IP) concept without the need for any
abstract and unimaginable ideas.

Fields, OTOH, can be thought of as areas of DM where observations show
that some activity occurs as if without some observable cause. We can
now move on from the notion of fields as mere effects to the notion
that fields can exist anywhere DM exits because the effects observed in
such areas of space occur when there are interactions between DM, real
matter, and the forces attendant to each.

In my model, DM exploded from the BB but it soon lost the impetus it
gained from the BB and became relatively stationary in space, where it
eventually condensed into RM, which is the visible objects we see
today. The DM is still coming out of the BB, however, and so it must
be the new DM that is passing over and through the old DM which has
slowed as it lost it impetus. DM has no positive energy for motive
power, thus we must conclude it will all some day become stationary.

While it is moving, it's impetus has it interacting with other DM and
RM as well. Once it becomes stationary, however, its interactions with
energy waves and moving DM produces more RM, which may be that which
defines the cellular structures we observe as typical of the universe.

My model thus explains a number of other phenomena in rational terms
that better suit our observations.

kenseto wrote:
ROTFLOL......another example of nothingness space can have stress and
this nothingness can expand faster than light and carries the galaxies
along with it as it expand.

What makes you think that something that does not contain matter is
nothing. If something has properties but matter is not one of those
properties, does the reality of those other properties go away?


Do you think that calling the ether as nothingness is a refutation of
the existence of an ether? shrug

No, the only one that is calling empty space nothingness is you.

PD

Post your response here. I'm open for correction and/or criticism. No hard
feelings or bad reactions.

DaveL


"Henry Haapalainen" wrote in message
...

"DaveL" nospam kirjoitti viestissä
...
The aether is not a fixed field. It is fluid. It has currents and
eddies.
It's movement is what causes gravity. It's movement is responsible for
the
red shift of distant galaxies and phenomena. It's movement is
responsible
for light bending around massive bodies. It's movement is GR's curved
space. Waves in it are what is called electromagnetic radiation.

DaveL

No, that is totally wrong. If you want to know why, send me an email, and
I
will answer to you.



Henry Haapalainen

"Henry Haapalainen" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" kirjoitti viestissä
oups.com...
Steven Weinberg said that a field is stress in space. Doesn't that
sound like that space is a material medium that can have stress? If so
how is a field different than the ether?

Ether is something standing still, a field has an activity.

Henry Haapalaien

"DaveL" nospam wrote in message ...
| Post your response here. I'm open for correction and/or criticism. No hard
| feelings or bad reactions.
|
| DaveL

Any eddies or currents would cause distortion in the light.
http://tinyurl.com/ezxxc

There is just simply no NEED for any aether.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.
RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

-- Sir Isaac Newton.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm

Androcles






|
| "Henry Haapalainen" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "DaveL" nospam kirjoitti viestissd
| ...
| The aether is not a fixed field. It is fluid. It has currents and
| eddies.
| It's movement is what causes gravity. It's movement is responsible for
| the
| red shift of distant galaxies and phenomena. It's movement is
| responsible
| for light bending around massive bodies. It's movement is GR's curved
| space. Waves in it are what is called electromagnetic radiation.
|
| DaveL
|
| No, that is totally wrong. If you want to know why, send me an email, and
| I
| will answer to you.
|
|
|
| Henry Haapalainen
|
| "Henry Haapalainen" wrote in message
| ...
|
| "kenseto" kirjoitti viestissd
| oups.com...
| Steven Weinberg said that a field is stress in space. Doesn't that
| sound like that space is a material medium that can have stress? If so
| how is a field different than the ether?
|
| Ether is something standing still, a field has an activity.
|
| Henry Haapalaien
|
|
|
|
|
|

"kenseto" kirjoitti viestissä
ps.com...
Why can't it be that the activity in a field is the result of objects
moving in the stationary ether????

Yes, if we accept that the wind is caused by swinging trees.

Henry Haapalainen

Henry Haapalainen wrote:
"kenseto" kirjoitti viestissä
ps.com...
Why can't it be that the activity in a field is the result of objects
moving in the stationary ether????

Yes, if we accept that the wind is caused by swinging trees.

Henry Haapalainen

No, not the same thing. Swinging trees cannot be the ether in this
case. The wind cannot be the ether in which the trees are swinging,
either, since trees can exist when there is no wind.

The activity observed in a field is due to motion of whatever objects
are interacting in the field, whether due to the field effects on the
objects or due to other forces. Without motion, there can be no
interactions, as a field can also be described as an area of potential
wherein interactions may or might occur. That is because to have
interactions requires energy and to have energy requires matter.
Matter is objects, and so it can be that field activity is the result
of objects moving in a stationary ether.

There is, apparently, a necessary relationship between fields and
objects. However, some objects are said to be massless, and so it is
said that matter is not required for kinetic energy to exist. For that
to be true, the formula E=mc^2 + (energy of motion), and the Principle
of the Conservation of Mass and Energy must first be overthrown.

Consistent with that, Higgs has proposed that while all other massless
particles carry energy between massive particles, there is one that is
not massless and which carries not energy, but mass, between particles
to endow them with the mass carried by it. I do not see that as a
plausible idea because, for one thing, he does not explain from where
the particle, called the "Higgs boson", gets its mass. For another
thing, such a massive particle would have positive mass and thus,
+energy, and that would make it easily visible for observation. Where
would its mass come from? If it comes from the field, from where does
the field get it?

As I have said, it is time for us to combine field theories with the
new evidence of Dark Matter and ideas of how the two are the same
thing, which we may call the ether.

"Hexenmeister" wrote in message
.uk...

"DaveL" nospam wrote in message ...
| Post your response here. I'm open for correction and/or criticism. No
hard
| feelings or bad reactions.
|
| DaveL

Any eddies or currents would cause distortion in the light.
http://tinyurl.com/ezxxc


As happens when light bends around massive bodies.


There is just simply no NEED for any aether.


To me it all fits. Without the aether we are stuck with strange,
nonsensical derivations of SR.


DaveL

DaveL wrote:
"Hexenmeister" wrote in message
.uk...

"DaveL" nospam wrote in message ...
| Post your response here. I'm open for correction and/or criticism. No
hard
| feelings or bad reactions.
|
| DaveL

Any eddies or currents would cause distortion in the light.
http://tinyurl.com/ezxxc


As happens when light bends around massive bodies.


There is just simply no NEED for any aether.


To me it all fits. Without the aether we are stuck with strange,
nonsensical derivations of SR.

Gee, the world is full of strange. I don't know *where* you got the
idea that nature should not be strange.

As for nonsensical, I see nothing nonsensical about it at all.

Now, if the problem is that you're not able to follow it, then the
problem is either your teacher or how you've gone about learning it,
not with the subject matter at all.

PD



DaveL

What is a field???

I could talk about this till the cows come home.

"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...

DaveL wrote:
"Hexenmeister" wrote in message
.uk...

"DaveL" nospam wrote in message
...
| Post your response here. I'm open for correction and/or criticism. No
hard
| feelings or bad reactions.
|
| DaveL

Any eddies or currents would cause distortion in the light.
http://tinyurl.com/ezxxc


As happens when light bends around massive bodies.


There is just simply no NEED for any aether.


To me it all fits. Without the aether we are stuck with strange,
nonsensical derivations of SR.

Gee, the world is full of strange. I don't know *where* you got the
idea that nature should not be strange.

As for nonsensical, I see nothing nonsensical about it at all.

Now, if the problem is that you're not able to follow it, then the
problem is either your teacher or how you've gone about learning it,
not with the subject matter at all.



As far as SR goes, I'm self-taught. It's a good thing too because this way
I was able to form my own opinion. Unlike some of you, who were obviously
brainwashed by the status quo.

Without the aether as a medium and frame of reference Einstein mistakenly
had to accept LT as not an aberration of light but as reality. From there
he derived all sorts of impossible conclusions where inanimate objects
magically change shape and size. Too bad he could not realize that because
c is finite, it must be based on something. This error lead to his false
assumption that time is no longer a constant but becomes determined by
relative velocities.

DaveL